Speaker 1: April twenty three, twenty twenty five, allegedly according to that
Speaker 1: thing we call a calendar, and this is the o'celli effect.
Speaker 1: Now you probably already know that, but you know, being
Speaker 1: that you already know that, and being that it is
Speaker 1: this part of April and it is a Wednesday, I
Speaker 1: thought it would be a good idea to get into
Speaker 1: something that has been in the news lately for sure,
Speaker 1: but also has been I don't know, just kind of
Speaker 1: a strange, a strange sort of situation. Now I'm actually
Speaker 1: looking at, believe it or not. I was just looking
Speaker 1: at something that I can do to record the call
Speaker 1: and on Skype, because I was going to do that
Speaker 1: just you know, as an added sort of thing right
Speaker 1: here at the end, and so on and so forth,
Speaker 1: because Skype is about to go away, and I had
Speaker 1: this whole thing set up in mind with Larry Hancock,
Speaker 1: who is my guest. And you know what's funny, They've
Speaker 1: taken away my record option on Skype. So whole thing
Speaker 1: I went through setting up the show no reason to
Speaker 1: even bother. I can still do captions, I can still
Speaker 1: translate calls, I can put calls on hold, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: But guess what no more video recording from Skype? The
Speaker 1: end of an era? Larry, Anyway, what are we talking
Speaker 1: about tonight? It's not going to be Skype. It is
Speaker 1: instead going to be the other Kennedy who was assassinated
Speaker 1: in the nineteen sixties. Why. Well, in recent news, what
Speaker 1: have we been confronted with? Trump dropped more documentation out there? Right,
Speaker 1: he did the JFF thing. But now there's a records
Speaker 1: collection at Nara, Okay, at the archives over there at
Speaker 1: archives dot org, and it's the records related to the
Speaker 1: assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. And it made some
Speaker 1: news for a minute. People said, wow, this is amazing.
Speaker 1: We got a whole bunch of new stuff. And indeed
Speaker 1: we got a few new things out of it. But
Speaker 1: I'm gonna ask Larry about what we actually got out
Speaker 1: of it, because you know, there's been material over the years,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna give you links to all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm mentioning, by the way, but there's been material over
Speaker 1: the years. Columbia University put out something in twenty twenty, apparently,
Speaker 1: you know, related to the RFK assassination. There's an article
Speaker 1: which is over in the CIA reading room titled The
Speaker 1: Shaw's Secret Police are here. In case you don't know
Speaker 1: about the Shaw and the secret Police, the Savak, I know.
Speaker 1: I brought it up on shows before when I talked
Speaker 1: about the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of Mohammed Mozadek,
Speaker 1: who was a democratically elected leader of Iran, and the
Speaker 1: implementation or the reimplementation or the reimportation or gee, what
Speaker 1: do you do? You install a king, don't you? And
Speaker 1: a Shaw in Arabic is a king. We reinstalled our CIA,
Speaker 1: did not you and me? We reinstalled the Shaw of Iran,
Speaker 1: his son from the previous Shaw of Iran. And if
Speaker 1: you're old enough to remember, in the late seventies there
Speaker 1: was a whole controversy about Iran wanting to put him
Speaker 1: on trial and return the Shaw to Iran. There was
Speaker 1: also a hostage crisis and all that good stuff. That's
Speaker 1: how we got Nightline and the countdown of the many
Speaker 1: days of this is day number one hundred and whatever
Speaker 1: of the hostage crisis went on for a long time.
Speaker 1: Did I go away from the RFK discussion? Maybe maybe not.
Speaker 1: Sir An Serhannah Palestinian, somebody who was allegedly angry with
Speaker 1: Robert F. Kennedy for what support of Israel. And then
Speaker 1: in later years we've heard about RFK himself as Attorney
Speaker 1: General seeking to what make Apak a sort of a
Speaker 1: foreign enemy among us being listed as hostile because of
Speaker 1: the spying and this and that and so on and
Speaker 1: so forth. And then you get into the strange tropes
Speaker 1: of people thinking that maybe the massad was connected to
Speaker 1: the Kennedy assassination, but anyway, not the Robert F. Kennedy assassination,
Speaker 1: by the way, but the JFK assassination. Meanwhile, a lot
Speaker 1: of unanswered questions for a guy named Sir Han Bashir
Speaker 1: sar Hahn, yes both names first and last same, but anyway,
Speaker 1: questions about his family. We've gone on this show over
Speaker 1: the years. We've gone over a lot of things over
Speaker 1: the years, and Larry Hancock has been with us for
Speaker 1: a lot of it. Of course, carmin and Sabastano with
Speaker 1: us as well. Carmine the author of Two Princes and
Speaker 1: a King, the two princes being John F. Kennedy and FK,
Speaker 1: and the King being Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. He
Speaker 1: focused on those three assassinations. But I got to say,
Speaker 1: one of the most underserved discussions, explorations, or even revelations
Speaker 1: that come out of anything has been regarding the RFK assassination,
Speaker 1: which again was investigated through Special Unit. Senator. There's a
Speaker 1: book by that name. It's an old one, but it's
Speaker 1: still valid to read it and check it out since
Speaker 1: the guy who headed it up wrote it, as I
Speaker 1: remember anyway. But anyway, a lot of stuff going on,
Speaker 1: a lot of discussion, and a lot of it ill
Speaker 1: informed or uninformed, generally speaking in my estimation. But enough
Speaker 1: out of me. How about the author of a ton
Speaker 1: of books on my bookshelf, a guy who's written about
Speaker 1: the RFK assassination. Wait a minute, Larry, you might have
Speaker 1: written less about RFK than you did about the other
Speaker 1: two assassinations as far as stuff that's been published. Or
Speaker 1: maybe I'm wrong, No, maybe that's just the books. I'm confused, Larry.
Speaker 1: But of course you're the author of a great many books,
Speaker 1: not just on the JFK assassination, which, of course the
Speaker 1: Oswald puzzle is the latest, and that's what I highly
Speaker 1: highly recommend, But I recommend all of your stuff, including
Speaker 1: tipping Point, and someone would have talked any version of it.
Speaker 1: Those are all great for JFK and MLK the awful
Speaker 1: Grace of God. And what is a Killing King? I
Speaker 1: think is the other title? Is that right? I don't
Speaker 1: want to turn around and try to squint to read
Speaker 1: my book spines? Is that the other title?
Speaker 2: But Larry Killing King would beat?
Speaker 1: Okay? I got it. See, Look sometimes I get stuff right.
Speaker 1: But RFK, even in your writing, although I know you've
Speaker 1: done a ton of study on it, I would say
Speaker 1: maybe I haven't published as much on it. Anyway, I'd
Speaker 1: like to get your impressions about the recently distributed stuff
Speaker 1: what it means. And again, my humble estimation is that
Speaker 1: I've only never seen some of the photographic images, and
Speaker 1: some of this stuff sort of organized a little differently.
Speaker 1: The exhibits and the way they scan them today look
Speaker 1: a little different than when they used to press things
Speaker 1: up against the photocopy machine. I guess, you know, in
Speaker 1: the old days, and you got stuff from the archives
Speaker 1: there in Sacramento, California, I think it is. But either way,
Speaker 1: a lot of studies still to be done and a
Speaker 1: lot of things still to be known about the RFK assassination.
Speaker 1: And again that's my estimation. But like I said, enough
Speaker 1: outam me, Larry. First off, how you doing tonight? And
Speaker 1: you know, if you want to talk to me about
Speaker 1: these things, I'm going to give links to the guys
Speaker 1: in the chat room and also in the show notes
Speaker 1: the articles that you and I discussed that I was
Speaker 1: going to put on video can't now. But also I'm
Speaker 1: going to give them the links to the new records
Speaker 1: collection and anything else we mentioned along the way here
Speaker 1: as best I can. But let's get you know, the
Speaker 1: word from the best recent urse we have, which is you.
Speaker 1: So first, how you doing tonight? And second, you know,
Speaker 1: go ahead and start commenting where you want regarding RFK,
Speaker 1: the assassination and the most recent action regarding you know,
Speaker 1: transparency anyway in the investigations or whatever on RFK, please
Speaker 1: you bet, Chuck.
Speaker 2: And sure life is difficult.
Speaker 3: It becomes more difficult when you I think we're all
Speaker 3: going to be split in like three pieces with records
Speaker 3: releases on MLK, RFK and JFK, And you know, can
Speaker 3: you really deal deal with three of them in real
Speaker 3: time when you're talking about lots of information?
Speaker 2: But yeah, I think we're coping.
Speaker 3: We have tools to allow us to do that, and
Speaker 3: there are a lot of people looking at it. But
Speaker 3: just to set some background, it is true that the
Speaker 3: one assassination that I have not written about in terms
Speaker 3: of a book is the RFK assassination.
Speaker 2: No book.
Speaker 3: There pretty extensive autograph that we didn't go out for
Speaker 3: a book on. The monograph is called Incomplete Justice, and
Speaker 3: it's on the Mary Pharaoh website and it's it's extensive
Speaker 3: with a lot of sources. But the difference in the
Speaker 3: two is one of the big things that we're lacking
Speaker 3: in regard to RFK and and the sort of thing
Speaker 3: that that Stu Wexler and I who was working with
Speaker 3: me on an RFK and MLK both found a problem
Speaker 3: was that the House Select Committee did, of course collect
Speaker 3: a lot of records and documents and it's it's invested.
Speaker 3: They were supposed to deal with all three is at
Speaker 3: political assassinations. They did JFK in great depth, MLK and
Speaker 3: lesser rep depth, and RFK not at all. So there
Speaker 3: was not an HSCA collection. The HSCA didn't go back
Speaker 3: to the FBI or CIA and really probe into whether
Speaker 3: or not there had been a federal investigation into what
Speaker 3: was a state crime in California that that whole element
Speaker 3: was missing. So we had a very incomplete picture, far
Speaker 3: less complete than we did in the two other assassinations,
Speaker 3: and we just didn't feel without that part of the picture,
Speaker 3: it was too speculative. So that's why no book ever
Speaker 3: came out of it. And we put what we could
Speaker 3: in what we had learned into that monograph. And that's
Speaker 3: that's an important stage for what people are talking about,
Speaker 3: because everybody's talking about file releases without asking the question
Speaker 3: of what file and where? You know, where has this
Speaker 3: stuff been all this time? Was this stuff actually not
Speaker 3: released before it?
Speaker 2: Has it been hidden? Is it secret?
Speaker 3: And what we're learning in almost all cases is what
Speaker 3: we're seeing now is material that we've either seen before
Speaker 3: through one of the collections efforts, the HSCA, you know,
Speaker 3: the warrant Commission for JFK, the Assassination's Record Review Board
Speaker 3: for JFK. That's all put new stuff into the collections,
Speaker 3: which is why we're seeing so much stuff, but stuff
Speaker 3: that we've seen before, just with a few redactions lifted.
Speaker 1: Right now, I haven't.
Speaker 3: I mean that there's good stuff in there, but that's
Speaker 3: much more familiar to us because there were collections efforts.
Speaker 1: Right now I want to just ask you a question
Speaker 1: here and interrupt you at exactly this point, because in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases, what we're seeing here now, though,
Speaker 1: are also copies of something that may have been shown
Speaker 1: to us before, but now it's a copy. Let me
Speaker 1: give you it. For instance, if the Dallas Police sent
Speaker 1: a report to the FBI, Now the FBI has a
Speaker 1: copy of it. The Dallas Police have a copy of it.
Speaker 1: The FBI sends that same report over to the CIA,
Speaker 1: now has a copy of it. I'm doing this in
Speaker 1: a very oversimplified way, but each one of them has
Speaker 1: a copy of essentially the same thing, and each one
Speaker 1: of them might actually dump this into the collection, and
Speaker 1: now you have a triplicate of the same report. That's
Speaker 1: one thing. But the other thing I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: you about really quickly. And I've seen speculations about this,
Speaker 1: and I have mixed feelings, because there were people that
Speaker 1: stated that the RFK assassination was going to be part
Speaker 1: of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and then it
Speaker 1: was decided that it was not something they were going
Speaker 1: to go into because it was a little more definitive.
Speaker 1: They caught the assassin right there. It wasn't like they
Speaker 1: captured him later in a movie theater, or caught him
Speaker 1: after he left the country, you know, as in the
Speaker 1: MLK and JFK cases. Right, Either they caught him sometime
Speaker 1: later in that day at a movie theater, or they
Speaker 1: wound up with a man hunt. He wound up leading
Speaker 1: the country, and they got him back James L.
Speaker 4: Ray.
Speaker 1: So therefore it was sort of like, that's more of
Speaker 1: a case closed situation. And in the seventies it was
Speaker 1: sort of determined, maybe we will, maybe we won't. Never mind,
Speaker 1: it's already kind of solved. Is that an accurate portrayal
Speaker 1: of what you understand? And also what about my idea
Speaker 1: that sometimes we have things in triplicate because agencies communicate
Speaker 1: with each other. And now I have, you know, like
Speaker 1: I said, the CIA and the FBI's copy of what
Speaker 1: I already have from the Dallas police because they sent
Speaker 1: it to them in the first place.
Speaker 3: On the first point, no, I don't think that's what
Speaker 3: happened with the RFK and the HSCA. Literally the point
Speaker 3: was the House Select Committee ran out of time, they
Speaker 3: ran out of money, and they had to make some choices,
Speaker 3: and quite frankly, black legislators, the Black Caucus, the Black
Speaker 3: legislator had been very important to pushing the HFCA and
Speaker 3: lobbying for its creation, being behind it. So there's a
Speaker 3: very there's a very strong voice to look at JFK
Speaker 3: and MLK, not not to ignore RFK, but the point
Speaker 3: is those those were the starting points, that's where the
Speaker 3: real kickoff was.
Speaker 2: And this they just literally ran out a time of money.
Speaker 2: They could not even complete everything that they had wanted
Speaker 2: to do on those two subjects.
Speaker 3: So I don't think there's because if it had been
Speaker 3: as you described, I mean, quite frankly, James el Ray
Speaker 3: is there, he's convicted.
Speaker 2: You know that that.
Speaker 3: Was not you know, you wouldn't set it aside because yes,
Speaker 3: somebody had been convicted in the crime legally, just as
Speaker 3: Sir Han so to that extent, Sir Hann and James R.
Speaker 3: Al Ray are equivalent. There's no just because someone has
Speaker 3: has gone to trial and been convicted. I don't think
Speaker 3: that would that did not parse out RFK. I really
Speaker 3: think it was a matter of time and money.
Speaker 1: Okay, well it may have been a matter of time,
Speaker 1: and I you know me, I don't like to counterpoint
Speaker 1: you very much, but I but I will counter with this.
Speaker 1: G Robert Blakey had stayed it in several places, and
Speaker 1: I've seen a record he returned some of the money
Speaker 1: at the end of the HSCA. He had more money
Speaker 1: left that he did not use even at the end.
Speaker 1: So I I don't know if they ran out of time,
Speaker 1: or they ran out of interest, or but something happened there.
Speaker 1: And I just was wondering if you knew about the
Speaker 1: potential for them covering RFK, because it's an it's an
Speaker 1: open question to me if they were even going to
Speaker 1: do it, but but Blakeney to do it, if he
Speaker 1: returned money, it was simply because they ran out of
Speaker 1: time and didn't have the time to spend it. Fair enough,
Speaker 1: I just want to make they absolutely were they were
Speaker 1: supposed to do it, There's no doubt about that. And
Speaker 1: I had to counter that because I know that I
Speaker 1: got about three listeners out there that would have written
Speaker 1: to me telling me, gee, Robert blake returned money. And
Speaker 1: here's the I know he did, Okay, So I just
Speaker 1: want to make that clear, and that's why I did it.
Speaker 1: But running at it, But the interest isn't important here
Speaker 1: because we had a serious public outcry after the Suppruter
Speaker 1: film was shown on TV nationally, and of course it
Speaker 1: had been stewing in a cottage industry. I hate to
Speaker 1: use these terms because now I sound like Gerald Posner,
Speaker 1: but in a cottage industry of books and films and
Speaker 1: various speculations that were out there in public that were
Speaker 1: causing public discourse and pressure on Congress. Literally. Okay, there
Speaker 1: was the Citizens' Council, you know, there were you know,
Speaker 1: going after the truth. There was all of that. It's
Speaker 1: sort of like the culmination that brought together the ARRB,
Speaker 1: where you had people pushing and pushing for the files
Speaker 1: for years, and the push over the line was the
Speaker 1: Oliver Stone film because that upset people that they you know,
Speaker 1: what do you mean, I can't see this up until
Speaker 1: twenty twenty nine, you know, and we almost made it
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty nine before we got it a home. Anyway,
Speaker 1: another story, But my point is I just wanted to
Speaker 1: bring that up and also bring up the idea that
Speaker 1: some people say, well, RFK might have been in the
Speaker 1: HSCA exploration too, since you brought it up and there
Speaker 1: is no HSCA for him. There is a lot of
Speaker 1: things that are not and there's not as many films
Speaker 1: about Bobby, even though there were a few films. Yes,
Speaker 1: there were a few documentaries, but Hollywood didn't grab onto it,
Speaker 1: and when they did, they did weird things like that
Speaker 1: old thing about the hotel. Remember they followed the hairdresser
Speaker 1: and the hotel guy around for the whole movie during
Speaker 1: the assassination. I forget what the name of that was.
Speaker 1: Might have actually been called Bobby that film right. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Either way, Hollywood didn't grab it as much. TV didn't
Speaker 1: grab it as much. It just didn't cause the same
Speaker 1: public outcry. And the King thing definitely had had a well,
Speaker 1: a racial element to it that made black caucus members,
Speaker 1: you know, really anxious to put their two cents in,
Speaker 1: and that's what made sense there. So it does make
Speaker 1: sense from a this was politically advantageous and maybe RFK wasn't.
Speaker 1: Would I would categorize it more like that. But did
Speaker 1: they run out of time? Were they under all sorts
Speaker 1: of pressure to just get it done and over with?
Speaker 1: Seems like it when you listen to Blakey and you
Speaker 1: listen to other people that you know were removed before
Speaker 1: Blakey took over. So there's a lot to be said
Speaker 1: there for that, I just wanted to qualify hold that, Larry.
Speaker 3: Sorry, but I think the bottom line is there was
Speaker 3: no HSCA collection of RFK materials, right, So if we
Speaker 3: want to step back of saying it's like, okay, where
Speaker 3: is this stuff?
Speaker 2: What are the files that are being released? No, there's no.
Speaker 3: RFK collection at NARA. From the work of the HSCA
Speaker 3: to consolidate things, to collect things to do an investigation,
Speaker 3: there was There were.
Speaker 2: Was JFK. Yes, So which takes us.
Speaker 3: Back to what you were saying earlier in the fact
Speaker 3: of what's really there and what could be released from
Speaker 3: there and the point being, for example, with the RFK
Speaker 3: we saw I'm sorry with with JFK, we saw this
Speaker 3: big announcement that the FBI had identified thousands of pages
Speaker 3: that were associated with JFK that they were going to
Speaker 3: turn in after the President had issued as the directive. Great,
Speaker 3: we just you know, we found these they related to JFK,
Speaker 3: We're going to turn them in.
Speaker 2: Well, what those.
Speaker 3: Really were, literally were bulk files, bulk name files under
Speaker 3: the subject of the JFK investigation, which is as you
Speaker 3: described them, or material that had been copied to the
Speaker 3: FBI letters that had come to the FBI. They're not
Speaker 3: assassination materials, their assassination related materials, but there's nothing that
Speaker 3: unique as far as the FBI is concerned. They're just
Speaker 3: setting there and that's the reason they were just sitting there.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: Periodically, the record's retention process, you know, cleans out records
Speaker 3: and the agencies box them all up and they send
Speaker 3: an an aura and generally those things unless they're you know,
Speaker 3: they die in a declassification room, you know, with thousands
Speaker 3: of pages just stuffed in boxes, you know, or these
Speaker 3: ever going to make it into the files.
Speaker 2: Maybe probably not. So that's that's what they did.
Speaker 3: Now to some extent, what we're seeing with RFK is
Speaker 3: the same sort of thing. There was no federal investigation
Speaker 3: of the assassination of Senator Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Well, no publicly wait, no publicly known federal investigation. There
Speaker 1: could have in investigations, but there's no publicly like, hey,
Speaker 1: look we're definitely looking into this and so on, And
Speaker 1: there was no official public investigation.
Speaker 3: Right, there was no order from the president or the
Speaker 3: Justice Department, right, So there is no official sanctioned investigation.
Speaker 2: There is a directive for RFK.
Speaker 3: You know, to the FBI if if LAPD ask you
Speaker 3: for help, sure help them, you know, if they if
Speaker 3: they want you to do a file check on someone,
Speaker 3: look in your files and tell them what you have
Speaker 3: if they you know. So there's they're certainly enabled to assist,
Speaker 3: but they're not enabled to go out and take over
Speaker 3: the investigation. Essentially is as they did with JFK, or
Speaker 3: as they did with MLK. MLK was a little bit
Speaker 3: in between, because Memphis police still had that, but they're
Speaker 3: in a much lower profile role. So what they might
Speaker 3: have done on their own is another question, which I
Speaker 3: would talk about separately, but officially, what you've got setting
Speaker 3: there in the FBI is a collection of letters to
Speaker 3: the FBI about the assassination of Senator Kennedy, and you
Speaker 3: can see those. You can go through what's been released
Speaker 3: now and say, you know, there are a lot of
Speaker 3: letters from people talking about how it's a shame Sir
Speaker 3: Hann was a communist, Sir Han was a terrorist.
Speaker 2: You know, there's Sir.
Speaker 3: Hann was carrying out just part of the attacks on Israel.
Speaker 3: A lot of private communications going to the FBI, some
Speaker 3: request for help from l A p D A lot
Speaker 3: copied to them from other agency, copied from l A
Speaker 3: p D, copied from newspaper sources, copied from military intelligence.
Speaker 3: All goes into this into this name file, and it's
Speaker 3: all sets there and after some period of time, you know,
Speaker 3: it's trotted over and sets it NARA and those appear
Speaker 3: to see. You know, that's what we're seeing show up.
Speaker 3: Now that the thing about that is, you know, there
Speaker 3: are two things that we would like to see. We
Speaker 3: would like to see something unique and you know that
Speaker 3: we haven't seen before related to the actual investigation of
Speaker 3: the crime. You know that that would be great not
Speaker 3: seeing that, Which makes sense in a way because that
Speaker 3: was lap D and sus uh was not FBI. The
Speaker 3: FBI did did do some interviews.
Speaker 2: Uh, they got to lead.
Speaker 3: They did do some interviews in a couple of cases
Speaker 3: they got to lead interview somebody and handed it off
Speaker 3: to l A p D. So we see some of that.
Speaker 3: But to get to your point, and a point that
Speaker 3: I would like to stress what would have interested me
Speaker 3: more is if you think about it for a moment,
Speaker 3: the investigation of a senator, a US senator running for
Speaker 3: presidency is a national security issue. It should be thought
Speaker 3: of a national security issue. These days, that certainly would
Speaker 3: be thought of as a national security issue, So there
Speaker 3: would be a charter for the national intelligence community to
Speaker 3: take a look if you know, this was this totally domestic?
Speaker 2: Is there some foreign element?
Speaker 3: And they would have this charter irrespective of the criminal investigation.
Speaker 3: So one of the real questions is was there any
Speaker 3: sort of national security investigation done of potential foreign links,
Speaker 3: foreign influence on Syrien, manipulation of Surien done by the
Speaker 3: FBI or the CIA more importantly, but anybody, did anybody
Speaker 3: in the national intelligence community treat it as a national
Speaker 3: security issue and investigate it?
Speaker 2: And we haven't seen those files. Now.
Speaker 3: If those were to turn up, I think it would
Speaker 3: be fascinating, but you know, there they probably somewhere else,
Speaker 3: you know, and the Director of National Intelligence, it's not
Speaker 3: just a matter of you know, would have to issue
Speaker 3: some directors and say, guys, look back at your file history.
Speaker 3: Did you guys actually investigate this on the CIA, did
Speaker 3: you do any investigation of you know, this is a
Speaker 3: national security issue. I don't think we're going to see
Speaker 3: that in what's sitting.
Speaker 2: There at NARA.
Speaker 1: Well, another valid check might have been with the nssay
Speaker 1: as well, because if you're talking about Sir Han getting
Speaker 1: any sort of foreign influence regarding this and the idea
Speaker 1: that he was indeed Palestinian and this might have been
Speaker 1: over the American support of Israel, et cetera, Well, could
Speaker 1: there not have been the Palestinian communication to the Palestinian
Speaker 1: sitting in America? And that would be I think under
Speaker 1: the nssays, you know, investigative arm to check out things
Speaker 1: like communication. So that would be a possibility too, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2: It would be.
Speaker 3: But again, since the SA actually works for CIA in
Speaker 3: that regard, you know, there could be a copy in NSA.
Speaker 3: There could be a you know, an RFK box, an
Speaker 3: RFK collection of NSA intercepts related to that assassination. Right,
Speaker 3: there's But the possibility is simply if if NSA was
Speaker 3: task with surveillance on Palestinian groups, Arab groups, student groups,
Speaker 3: et cetera operating inside the United States, operating for that matter,
Speaker 3: against Israel inside the United States, because there was a
Speaker 3: great concern that a lot of these students were here
Speaker 3: in the US operating against either you know, their own
Speaker 3: country back home, against Israel. Whatever they're they're essentially in
Speaker 3: refuge here because they can operate you know, revolutionary activities
Speaker 3: back home, say more safely here. So yeah, that there
Speaker 3: certainly could be files like that. Savok itself, we absolutely know,
Speaker 3: and you have links posted to that Savak was operating
Speaker 3: inside the United States, conducting bombings, kentuckting, assassinations against the
Speaker 3: anti Shaw.
Speaker 2: Student community in the United States.
Speaker 3: Surely the CIA was monitoring that. Surely the NSA was
Speaker 3: monitoring communication. There should be a whole body of national
Speaker 3: security information related to these, you know, Arab radicals, Iranian radicals,
Speaker 3: the different student communities, the intelligence services of these nations
Speaker 3: operating here trying to cope with them. You know, it
Speaker 3: is like warfare going on in the US, and it
Speaker 3: was it was known that it was going on. What
Speaker 3: we do know now is that the CI, because the
Speaker 3: Johnson administration was very support of the Shaw For example,
Speaker 3: the State Department was very supportive of the Shaw, the CIA,
Speaker 3: Richard Helms, who went to become ambassador to Iran, the
Speaker 3: intelligence community was.
Speaker 2: Very supportive of the shawven regardless of what he was doing.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean the community might not be doing its job,
Speaker 3: but that might also be that, you know, if somebody
Speaker 3: rushes into Richard Helps and says, look, I found this.
Speaker 3: Helps may not want to pursue that there's some embedded
Speaker 3: interest in all this. The Kennedy administration and RFK himself
Speaker 3: had been quite hostile towards the Shawven. RFK himself had
Speaker 3: routed money to support student groups that were trying to
Speaker 3: ask the Shaw ofven. If you really look into the history,
Speaker 3: one of one of the Shaw's biggest international opponents and
Speaker 3: threats was Robert Kennedy himself, who had been trying to
Speaker 3: defoment revolution against the Shaw.
Speaker 2: So just for.
Speaker 1: Clarity in case somebody missed it or misunderstood something, the
Speaker 1: Savak was effectively the secret police of the Iranian regime
Speaker 1: that was installed when the Shaw of Iran was you know,
Speaker 1: put back at the head of the government after the
Speaker 1: overthrow momb But most of that okay, and again we
Speaker 1: could talk about, you know, Kermit Roosevelt and his involvement
Speaker 1: in it, and the CIA clearly at the very least
Speaker 1: assisted in what went on there, and quite frankly, in
Speaker 1: my mind, is responsible for all of what came after
Speaker 1: because the Shaw was then deposed, ended up in America,
Speaker 1: died here. If anybody doesn't remember or isn't old enough,
Speaker 1: you know, in the what was it, seventy nine, I
Speaker 1: think he was here. I remember being a little kid
Speaker 1: and having to learn who the hell the Shaw of
Speaker 1: Iran was. You know, never heard of him before, but
Speaker 1: you know, other people on the planet and those that
Speaker 1: were more ast in international affairs knew. And the Savak
Speaker 1: being the secret police of this guy, yeah, they might
Speaker 1: have had an interest in.
Speaker 3: You know, well, Savak had actually been trained by the CIA,
Speaker 3: and the CIA had assisted in setting up Savaka as
Speaker 3: a secure I mean setting up Slavaka as a security
Speaker 3: organization for this new regime that had put in place,
Speaker 3: so certainly it knew the right individuals.
Speaker 2: Some of those individuals.
Speaker 3: Had come over here for training, so that there were connections.
Speaker 3: And again, in light of the US foreign policy, what
Speaker 3: Savak was doing was actually, even though they were illegally
Speaker 3: in the US and acting against Iranian citizens, it was
Speaker 3: situationally in line with the American foreign policy, and nobody
Speaker 3: was arresting them and deporting them.
Speaker 2: If anything, they were enabling them, right, it.
Speaker 3: Would be fascinating to know to what extent they were
Speaker 3: enabling them.
Speaker 1: And here's the truth about it. We would see that
Speaker 1: template of the CIA created trained whatever groups of secret police,
Speaker 1: special military, special civilian guard, et cetera, repeated again and
Speaker 1: again in Latin America. Okay, same kind of thing that
Speaker 1: you know winds up forming the Savaka also formed some
Speaker 1: of the death squads. Sorry, but that's the truth of it,
Speaker 1: right Anyway, Maybe Larry is a little not quite as
Speaker 1: far down the rabbit hole as I am on that.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe he is, but that's the way
Speaker 1: I see it is that we have something that was
Speaker 1: standard operating procedure there.
Speaker 3: Yes, after writing Shadow Warfare, I think I'm pretty much
Speaker 3: at the bottom of the rabbit hole with you, Chuck. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it just it gets to be very repetitive. It's just
Speaker 3: standard operating practice. Right, when you replace a regime and
Speaker 3: put your regime in place, you help that new regime
Speaker 3: to do whatever is necessary to defend itself with its intelligence.
Speaker 3: It's counterintelligence, it's military area, it's weapons purchases.
Speaker 2: That just standard practice.
Speaker 1: Right, And look, it's not always one hundred percent successful.
Speaker 1: See also Vietnam, you know, because they had a secret
Speaker 1: police and the South Vietnamese. We were supporting them, weren't we.
Speaker 1: And uh, yeah, Okay, that didn't go so well.
Speaker 2: But other places it never goes that well.
Speaker 3: Long run, it's good for like five ten years, and
Speaker 3: then not so much.
Speaker 1: Right, That's okay. I just wanted to make sure you
Speaker 1: know I wasn't taking you too far down the conspiracy
Speaker 1: rabbit hole, that's all. But anyway, back to the meat
Speaker 1: of the subject here, though, I only saw a couple
Speaker 1: of things that I don't recall seeing before in those files.
Speaker 1: Would you mind highlighting a couple of those things.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: One of the things that shows up is some correspondence
Speaker 3: involving the State Department and various Arab nations Jordan, you know,
Speaker 3: and and it's clear that neither the State Department or
Speaker 3: these foreign nations really want the focus on Sir Han
Speaker 3: to be in regard to the Palestinian Cross, you know,
Speaker 3: Arab operations against you know, Israel, radicals in the US,
Speaker 3: you know, expats in the US from the that You'll
Speaker 3: see some letters in there on these State Department level
Speaker 3: communications where you know, the State Department is not encouraging
Speaker 3: that and is trying to ensure foreign governments that they're
Speaker 3: not going to encourage that. You know that this is
Speaker 3: not where anybody wants the dialogue to go at this
Speaker 3: point in time, and the files that we're looking at
Speaker 3: here are primarily during sir Han's trial, uh, you know,
Speaker 3: and and conviction, And at that point in time, there
Speaker 3: was a real no matter how much was introduced in
Speaker 3: court about Sir Han's writing and his remarks about you know,
Speaker 3: support for the Arab cause, uh, Palestinian rites, opposition to Israel,
Speaker 3: his hatred of RFK over support for his that was
Speaker 3: it was reported on, but it was that it never
Speaker 3: became the theme. There were you know, there were nobody
Speaker 3: put it in context of sir Han as an Arab
Speaker 3: terrorist then or Palestinian later later when some some lawyers
Speaker 3: came to his aid when he started going into his
Speaker 3: appeal cycle, he kind of bought into that meme and
Speaker 3: actually kind of used it himself.
Speaker 2: For a while. But initially it wasn't there. So you
Speaker 2: see some document.
Speaker 3: You see a lot of letters, you see a lot
Speaker 3: of correspondents about a either people writing to the FBI
Speaker 3: and wanting to sell that essentially, you know, you need
Speaker 3: to look into this.
Speaker 2: This guy as a.
Speaker 3: Terrorist and he has consections to terrorists, uh, and he's
Speaker 3: been motivated by the terrorist theme right, and on the
Speaker 3: other side, state department level stuff trying to counter that.
Speaker 3: Other things that you will see I thought was very interesting.
Speaker 3: There were some reports that again the FBI is just
Speaker 3: being copied on this stuff right from the Intelligent Military
Speaker 3: Intelligence unit that covers California, and they were supplying, you know,
Speaker 3: going through their files and seeing if they could provide information, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, on on Sir hand or Sir Ann's family,
Speaker 3: you know, trying to be of assistance. And the interesting
Speaker 3: thing about that is we saw the same thing in
Speaker 3: Dallas of military intelligence jumping right into the FRAY and
Speaker 3: I don't know where they're trying to prove themselves useful
Speaker 3: or you know, maintain this connection. We saw the same
Speaker 3: thing in Memphis with MLK early on. You see reports
Speaker 3: being copied to the FBI from military intelligence. And the
Speaker 3: interesting thing is that it kind of reinforces what we
Speaker 3: now know that at the time that military intelligence was
Speaker 3: monitoring a lot of activities that might have led to
Speaker 3: civil unrest, insurgency.
Speaker 2: That sort of thing.
Speaker 3: So we see those all in the files, and those
Speaker 3: are new. I mean, we have not seen those, and
Speaker 3: I think the reason we haven't seen those is they
Speaker 3: weren't part of the assassination investigation.
Speaker 2: Per se.
Speaker 3: We've been looking at things related to the crime, the
Speaker 3: attack at the ambassador. It's just like in the JFK
Speaker 3: records that we're seeing now, we've been looking at the crime.
Speaker 3: Did we look at some of the things that we're
Speaker 3: now looking at, like what was the CIA doing domestically?
Speaker 2: Now it's interesting when we see.
Speaker 3: That in a new record with fewer redactions. You know,
Speaker 3: what about this lessons Germanma. We just we weren't looking
Speaker 3: for that sort of stuff in the search place, but
Speaker 3: now we're seeing this corollary material. I guess you would
Speaker 3: call it, which is which is historically interesting. So somebody
Speaker 3: asked me today, so you're going to say there's nothing new,
Speaker 3: and that's not the story at all. There is new information,
Speaker 3: but it's not new information about the crime per se.
Speaker 1: Well, right, Like, I'll tell you one piece of interesting
Speaker 1: information which is revealed in more than one place, is
Speaker 1: you know, over the years, it's been characterized as, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, these conspiracy theorists, they came up with this
Speaker 1: idea of the girl in the polka dot dress and
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. And you can see in initial reports. Now,
Speaker 1: there were people talking about a girl in a polka
Speaker 1: dot dress that were witnesses, not just you know, the
Speaker 1: cherry picked stuff of conspiracy theorists. But there's a bunch
Speaker 1: of them in there actually corresponding about this. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that it's revolutionary. It's nothing new, but it
Speaker 1: does prove that it wasn't something that sat there and
Speaker 1: cooked and only got popular in the seventies, you know,
Speaker 1: after conspiracy authors kicked it around. That's garbage. It starts
Speaker 1: with the initial investigation and people volunteering this information and mentioned.
Speaker 2: Contrast, SHARONO.
Speaker 3: The meme that's generated at all is this polka dot
Speaker 3: dress girl came from one young woman who reported it
Speaker 3: and later admitted under polygraph that she'd made it up,
Speaker 3: which is totally untrue.
Speaker 2: Okay, but that's another story.
Speaker 3: Actually, if you go through the files that we've looked at,
Speaker 3: you know, for years, you'll see that there. I don't know,
Speaker 3: I would estimate they were close to two dozen people
Speaker 3: that saw and reported to LAPD the polka dot dress girl,
Speaker 3: in company with Sir Hand and with in company with
Speaker 3: two or three other people. And the interesting thing is
Speaker 3: that's all setting there in the file, right, and you
Speaker 3: wonder why did it ever go anywhere? And that's because
Speaker 3: Detective Sergeant Hernandez, when he did this bogus polygraph on Serrano.
Speaker 2: Went back to all those reports.
Speaker 3: And what you find initial across the top of them
Speaker 3: is not relevant because of the polka dot. Serrano's been disproved.
Speaker 3: So like all these other witnesses no longer count strictly
Speaker 3: because Serrano's been Oh yeah, it's appalling when you see
Speaker 3: what he's done to all those reports.
Speaker 1: Right. And the thing about this again is Sandra Serrano
Speaker 1: is the girl who just happened to be standing somewhere
Speaker 1: and these two people ran by her, and one of
Speaker 1: them was in a polka dot dress, and she said
Speaker 1: the one the guy looked like he was Mexican maybe,
Speaker 1: and she thought he was because she's Mexican. This is like,
Speaker 1: I'm really badly crushing and you know, summarizing her statement.
Speaker 1: But the thing is she was on film and the
Speaker 1: guy who did the documentary, you know, the second Gun
Speaker 1: or whatever, had her there, and people it picked up
Speaker 1: that piece of film and used it. And over the
Speaker 1: years we did get a copy of the recording of
Speaker 1: Hernandez and how he handled her, and people know that
Speaker 1: she got browbeat into changing her story.
Speaker 3: Okay, he gave her liquor before he did the polygraph
Speaker 3: too under age, no less right, took her out for drinks,
Speaker 3: and then the polygraph.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's atrocious.
Speaker 1: Right, there's a whole manipulation here. And as for who
Speaker 1: Hernandez really is and everything else, you might want to
Speaker 1: check into that. But the thing is they were discounting
Speaker 1: her and therefore dismissing the rest of these reports. But
Speaker 1: they are there, They exist, unprompted. It wasn't a conspiracy
Speaker 1: author feeding them an idea. Okay, it wasn't some crazy
Speaker 1: story that got out of hand. This is literally an
Speaker 1: element that was in play at the time. And I'm
Speaker 1: not even saying that the pokenad dressed girl is like
Speaker 1: the key to everything, like some people say. But who
Speaker 1: knows she's there? Okay? And did anybody ever actually track
Speaker 1: it down? And why not? These are relevant questions. So
Speaker 1: it's there. You can see historically where things stood and
Speaker 1: that they weren't simply generated out of the imaginations of
Speaker 1: authors that were trying to make a quick book on
Speaker 1: their book, which you know today you can't even make
Speaker 1: a buck on your book good luck. But I mean
Speaker 1: even back then it would have been hard for you
Speaker 1: to make a fortune on an RFK book. But anyway,
Speaker 1: still it dismisses that notion in my mind. But also
Speaker 1: there was some photographic stuff in there, and the presentation
Speaker 1: of a couple of things was a little different in
Speaker 1: what I was able to download, and I haven't downloaded
Speaker 1: them all, Larry, But did you notice any different photographs
Speaker 1: in there?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 2: I honestly did not.
Speaker 3: But I think that's because again, it's not because they
Speaker 3: have not been available, it's because the collection is massive.
Speaker 3: And if you're really not interested in that sort of thing,
Speaker 3: I mean, I'll always refer back to my friend John Hunt,
Speaker 3: who was obsessively interested in the forensics information, went to
Speaker 3: the California Archives, went through all of that. No, I
Speaker 3: don't believe that we're seeing anything new in terms of
Speaker 3: forensics material. I think we're just seeing stuff that nobody
Speaker 3: really bothered to look at in detail after the trial
Speaker 3: was over.
Speaker 2: I mean, that sort of.
Speaker 3: Stuff was not even dealt with in the trial because
Speaker 3: Sir Hann's defense attorney was not defending him on that issue.
Speaker 3: Sir Anne was being prosecuted. You know not, the defense
Speaker 3: attorney was not raising the issue of really whether Sir Han.
Speaker 2: Had killed RFK or not that was a given.
Speaker 3: He was accepting that he was trying to get him
Speaker 3: something other than a death sentence by going in another direction.
Speaker 3: So a lot of these materials that are forensics and
Speaker 3: crime scene and autopsy so never really came into dispute
Speaker 3: the way they have in the JFK case. For example,
Speaker 3: no nobody went there in the RFK case except John.
Speaker 1: And sadly, I mean, you have the case of Thomas
Speaker 1: Negucci who wound up getting fired and everything else, and
Speaker 1: you know, going through a whole thing when he said, look,
Speaker 1: you know you got you have the stiffling marks on
Speaker 1: the back of the year, which means the gun is
Speaker 1: rather close to the back of his ear. And there
Speaker 1: you go. You got the shooter in the wrong position.
Speaker 1: You've got a problem with the distance being closed like
Speaker 1: that because sir Hand was not that close. So what
Speaker 1: happens here that's relevant though, that's highly relevant. And the
Speaker 1: fact that they tried to get rid of the Gucci
Speaker 1: and all that is another story to follow. But you're
Speaker 1: not going to find it all in these files. Okay,
Speaker 1: you find the beginning of it, but not necessarily the end.
Speaker 1: So as we get ready to close down on this,
Speaker 1: I got one little question that I want you to
Speaker 1: run with. Whatever it is you feel like people need
Speaker 1: to know about this stuff, and it's pretty simple. Is
Speaker 1: you know, have you talked to Stu Wexler, because I'll
Speaker 1: tell you something. As soon as I was thinking about,
Speaker 1: because I'm involved with the planning for Lancer this year,
Speaker 1: I was thinking about trying to get a representative to
Speaker 1: talk about RFK just for at least one presentation to
Speaker 1: kind of, you know, address the new files before I
Speaker 1: even looked at them. This is what I was thinking,
Speaker 1: And I was kind of hoping that I could get
Speaker 1: all the Stu somehow, but I don't know what he's
Speaker 1: up to. So have you been in communication with Stu
Speaker 1: and you know, and also do you have any ideas
Speaker 1: about who currently might be an excellent presenter for this.
Speaker 1: I mean again, I still would love to see Stu
Speaker 1: in Dallas anyway, but either way, any ideas.
Speaker 2: On that Stu is available.
Speaker 3: He's working, actually he has a job, and it would
Speaker 3: be he can't deal with it because his job would
Speaker 3: not allow. He has a job working on MLK and
Speaker 3: the MLK CO cases that would not apply to RFK.
Speaker 3: So having him talk about RFK and talking about John
Speaker 3: Hunt's work, he definitely would be the person to do that.
Speaker 3: Gary Muir would also be the person since he'd dealt
Speaker 3: with John's manuscript extensively. Both of those could speak to
Speaker 3: the case and to the to the evidence because this
Speaker 3: and all this file release stuff that's not going to
Speaker 3: come up, unfortunately, I very much doubt it unless Representative
Speaker 3: Luna decides to bring it up at the house level.
Speaker 3: It's not gonna it's not going to come up. And
Speaker 3: what the d n I is having scanned it at
Speaker 3: the National Archives, this is this is another story. This
Speaker 3: is the crime investigation, another story entirely.
Speaker 2: So my impressions do would work? I think I'm sure
Speaker 2: go ahead you no, sorry.
Speaker 1: My impression is that Tulca Gabbard is probably of the
Speaker 1: mindset of okay, now let's move on to MLK, you know,
Speaker 1: just checking boxes here.
Speaker 2: So that would be my guess.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I would like to see that. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what, if you can do me a favor, go
Speaker 1: ahead and let Stu and Gary know if you don't
Speaker 1: mind that, I would be more than interested in bringing
Speaker 1: them on board for Lancer, either on a video or
Speaker 1: in person. But I would prefer them in person obviously
Speaker 1: because I'm going to be there too, so I wouldn't
Speaker 1: mind hanging out with them. And you're still gonna run
Speaker 1: the Facebook thing for us though, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I plan.
Speaker 1: Okay, great, I'm looking forward to it. Anyway, enough out
Speaker 1: of me and enough out of my asking a question.
Speaker 1: I'm asking him a favor on the air because I'm
Speaker 1: a jerk. But anyway, the thing is, you know, what
Speaker 1: else do you think people need to know about this?
Speaker 1: You know, give them the tie a bow on it,
Speaker 1: if you will, Larry go, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think the bow to be tied on it, and
Speaker 3: I agree with I think Gabert is just gonna consider
Speaker 3: it's done, and the President will consider it's done.
Speaker 2: You know, I said, release stuff, They release stuff. Okay,
Speaker 2: move on.
Speaker 3: But Aluna isn't a bit of a different a different
Speaker 3: position and a very simple question that she could ask.
Speaker 3: She could write a letter to CIA, n SA, FBI
Speaker 3: and literally say, did you independently conduct a national security
Speaker 3: investigation of any potential foreign influence or involvement with rfk's
Speaker 3: murder and literally you know, I did you or did
Speaker 3: you not? And if you did, I want to see
Speaker 3: those files, right, you know, if get them together, send
Speaker 3: them to me, send them to National We want to
Speaker 3: go through those because that would be full transparency. Full
Speaker 3: transparency would involve whether or not the agencies did something
Speaker 3: at their level, I mean quite frankly, an intelligence community
Speaker 3: level that whatever. Again, talking about sources and methods, you know,
Speaker 3: nobody is going to want to disclose.
Speaker 2: At the time, you know, what taps.
Speaker 3: What informants, what sources they have on these radicals operating
Speaker 3: in the United States. They're not going to surface that
Speaker 3: unless somebody makes them. And since LAPD was definitely not
Speaker 3: asking for that sort of thing, the most they asked for,
Speaker 3: would you know, give us you guys have any criminal
Speaker 3: history on Sir Han's brothers. Okay, yeah, we'll give you that.
Speaker 3: But they didn't ask that question. So if nobody's asking,
Speaker 3: they're not going to volunteer it. But the only one
Speaker 3: could ask for that.
Speaker 1: The only thing lap D would have been interested in
Speaker 1: is you have dirt on Sir hand or his family,
Speaker 1: basically so that we can make him look bad a trial.
Speaker 1: Because they were focused on ready prosecution.
Speaker 2: Prosecution, absolutely so, and nothing else. They didn't really.
Speaker 3: Basically, the DA let them have a possible conspiracy for
Speaker 3: about three or four weeks, and when they couldn't find
Speaker 3: the polka dot dress girl, it's like, give it up, guys,
Speaker 3: I got things to do here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't matter, close it up. He's the guy
Speaker 1: with the gun, he's the guy who got tackled. That's
Speaker 1: your man done. So yeah, that's what LAPD wanted because
Speaker 1: they were trying to close a case, and the case
Speaker 1: was for prosecution, not discovery. So there you go. Unless
Speaker 1: you had an obvious foreign influence that you know, jumped
Speaker 1: out right away, which they could have used against him too,
Speaker 1: what's you know, they're not going to spend all.
Speaker 3: That extra Plutscher denied, you know, he said he didn't.
Speaker 3: How could there be a foreign influence? I don't remember anything,
Speaker 3: you know. Okay, he's not going to help you out right.
Speaker 3: And by the way, that just mudies the waters. You know,
Speaker 3: I've got him there with a literal smoking gun in
Speaker 3: his hand. What DA in the world is going to
Speaker 3: want anything more?
Speaker 1: Right, You've got your man. There's nobody else on the
Speaker 1: scene with him. That's got a gun that you know of,
Speaker 1: so that's that right.
Speaker 3: And you've got a criminologist who is willing to go
Speaker 3: to give you a scenario the accounts or all the
Speaker 3: gunshots and all the wounds with out without troubling itself
Speaker 3: about all the extra holes and the door panels and
Speaker 3: the ceilings.
Speaker 2: You know, it's good.
Speaker 3: I've got a criminologist that will give me what I want.
Speaker 2: And he did. And I think, just to.
Speaker 3: Close up, just to show you how awful the trial
Speaker 3: was and how awful things were. The DA, the defense attorney,
Speaker 3: did not challenge the DA's case in any respect. He
Speaker 3: accepted all the evidence. And when they got to this
Speaker 3: area of criminology and evidence where he might have challenged
Speaker 3: or at least raised a couple of issues, the criminologists
Speaker 3: literally said to the judge, Judge, I've got a flight
Speaker 3: to catch to go do something else.
Speaker 2: Would it be okay if I just left.
Speaker 3: And you know, don't stay around here any longer. And
Speaker 3: the judge said, oh yeah, I wouldn't want you to
Speaker 3: miss your plane, and he left. That's just how bad
Speaker 3: can it get?
Speaker 1: There? You go? So, Larry, that's about the end of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, unless there's more material released. Really, even the
Speaker 1: I've seen online people say, oh, I never saw the
Speaker 1: autopsy materials before. Well, that's because you weren't really digging
Speaker 1: into it.
Speaker 3: It wasn't just no Linn Magnum and you didn't go
Speaker 3: to the California Archives and you did it, It didn't
Speaker 3: mean they weren't there.
Speaker 1: Right now, simply. And this is the point, this is
Speaker 1: where you can divide people in two categories, people that
Speaker 1: only did research on the internet and people that actually
Speaker 1: went and got physical files and went and physically investigated things.
Speaker 1: You can separate them right there, because here's the thing.
Speaker 1: You saw the autopsy materials if you went after it earlier,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't made available online. It just wasn't. I
Speaker 1: think California Archives today might have u like that, maybe,
Speaker 1: but not for a long time, not for the majority
Speaker 1: of the time that we could have been looking into this. Okay.
Speaker 3: I think even today you might indeed have to have
Speaker 3: Sir Han's family permission. Oh, there's a lawyer's permission, okay,
Speaker 3: because you got to remember, this is still a legal
Speaker 3: case that's being appealed.
Speaker 1: Well that's true too, and it's.
Speaker 3: Being appealed, and he's having having you know, hearings. Uh so,
Speaker 3: it's not like it's a it's a dead case, right What.
Speaker 1: Was it a year or two ago? What parole was
Speaker 1: granted and then denied by the governor of California right.
Speaker 3: Now exactly, Which it's a really interesting political question. But
Speaker 3: that's another story.
Speaker 1: That's yet another story. But that's not what we were
Speaker 1: talking about tonight. We were talking about the files with
Speaker 1: author Larry Hancock. And again, if you go to Larry
Speaker 1: dash Hancock dot com you can definitely catch you up
Speaker 1: on it because I'm sure you have you already blogged
Speaker 1: about this or are you gonna no?
Speaker 3: I do intend to do that sometime in the next
Speaker 3: few days. Basically addressing this question of you know, was
Speaker 3: there an investigation that we don't know about because it
Speaker 3: wasn't part of the criminal investigation and put up some
Speaker 3: of the links that you're putting up. It's just like
Speaker 3: these should have been obvious questions if you look at
Speaker 3: the reports LAPD was sending FBI about people reporting sir
Speaker 3: Han with Arabs and Arabs.
Speaker 2: Talking about killing JFK.
Speaker 3: Now, maybe that was all wrong, but at the time
Speaker 3: it should certainly have triggered a national security inquiry, absolutely.
Speaker 1: And probably did, but we have yet to see it. Anyway,
Speaker 1: last question, and then we're going to close it completely out,
Speaker 1: and that is any any highlights or should I post
Speaker 1: a link to that because I think you had a
Speaker 1: discussion with Morley on his last his podcast last week.
Speaker 1: I think about this, didn't you.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, we talked briefly, not nearly in this depth
Speaker 3: though in all honesty. Basically we were talking about this
Speaker 3: question of you know, what are we going to see that?
Speaker 3: That is what's in what's in the files that we
Speaker 3: are being given versus what my dependent files that were
Speaker 3: most definitely not and and Jeff, Jeff picked up as
Speaker 3: you would expect he would, on the foreign intelligence aspects,
Speaker 3: and that's what we talked about.
Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough, but I I you know me, I'm
Speaker 1: more about have we learned anything new? Is my whole point.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter which direction it comes from, just are
Speaker 1: we making progress here? And this isn't progress in a
Speaker 1: in a you know, in a big way. It is
Speaker 1: progress in that people now have access to some things
Speaker 1: that used to be more difficult to access, I think,
Speaker 1: but outside of that not so much, not as much.
Speaker 3: People may be shocked I guess that's the good thing, Chuck,
Speaker 3: to kind of wrap that part up. If people read
Speaker 3: some of the things that LAPD was sending the FBI,
Speaker 3: it's online now, we have had all this on Mary
Speaker 3: Ferrell for ages. You could read the reports about the
Speaker 3: Polka Dot dress girl and some but this still might
Speaker 3: simulate people to read this stuff and go, what you know,
Speaker 3: they let that go, So that's that's not a bad thing.
Speaker 3: Access is not a bad thing, even though we've had
Speaker 3: that out there for years now, this is okay too, right, And.
Speaker 1: If you go you know, if you go to Mary
Speaker 1: Ferrell dot org, it's under a featured Incomplete Justice series
Speaker 1: and you can read that that short. Larry called it
Speaker 1: a monograph, but I think it's a sixth part. Let
Speaker 1: me see sixth part.
Speaker 3: But we also have an RFK document collection that's probably
Speaker 3: our RFK document collection on Mary Farrell is bigger than
Speaker 3: what's being released from NARA right now, because we sucked
Speaker 3: up things from many different sources for that, not just
Speaker 3: the FBI.
Speaker 1: Right, And that's why Mary Ferrell dot Org is an incredible,
Speaker 1: you know resource and something that you know, I'm even
Speaker 1: hearing them mention it on TV shows people that I
Speaker 1: know you guys don't even know, are mentioning it and going, yeah,
Speaker 1: well I've seen this stuff on Mary Farrewell before and
Speaker 1: I went, yeah, of course you have. But anyway, good thing.
Speaker 1: And again Larrydashancock dot com keep track of his blog.
Speaker 1: I recommend all of his books. The most recent one,
Speaker 1: once again, the Oswald Puzzle, I think is absolutely central reading.
Speaker 1: That's of course on the JFK assassination and that particular
Speaker 1: historical character. And guaranteed you've never seen a work like this.
Speaker 1: It is very much a readable book, but also a
Speaker 1: reference book in my mind. So great job by you
Speaker 1: and David boy Land and I always pronounce his name
Speaker 1: differently every time I say it, But sorry, David. I
Speaker 1: hope to see you in Dallas as well, David, and
Speaker 1: I'll hear from you from Dallas anyway, Larry, maybe it'll
Speaker 1: be virtually, but we're gonna definitely see what kind of
Speaker 1: progress we can make this year in Dallas's well. So
Speaker 1: with all that having been said, I'll say this to
Speaker 1: you guys out there, Yes, go to Larry dash Hancock
Speaker 1: dot com. I recommend all of his books, even the
Speaker 1: free ones that are up on the internet. Those are
Speaker 1: good too. Maybe I'll give you a couple other additional links,
Speaker 1: but guaranteed all the stuff I mentioned tonight will be
Speaker 1: linked in the show notes. So check it out and
Speaker 1: read further and think for yourselves. I am merely o'celly.
Speaker 1: All of you are.
Speaker 5: Indeed revel calm Sage dot com, radio net.
Speaker 4: Go ahead in the truth about the Jay assassination?
Speaker 1: Right, well, what do you want to know?
Speaker 2: Dy Baker's wild claim?
Speaker 1: Oswald girlfriends you knew? Ruby and Barry answer weapons? Really,
Speaker 1: I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make me a wagon, but.
Speaker 4: Okay, bildy and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Come on, now, has it.
Speaker 2: Real effort on the day of hay as fascination into reclaim?
Speaker 1: Go to Amazon dot com, enter Youjudith Baker in her
Speaker 1: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 1: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 1: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 1: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith
Speaker 1: Barry Baker in her own words from the author himself,
Speaker 1: signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
Speaker 1: kias jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book
Speaker 1: and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith
Speaker 1: Ary Baker in her own words, thank you information.
Speaker 4: In Denial The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks
Speaker 4: by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 4: covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book
Speaker 4: In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using
Speaker 4: new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs
Speaker 4: that no one has ever written about before. It shows
Speaker 4: why it really failed and why the United States did
Speaker 4: not learn from It also shows why other countries today
Speaker 4: are doing secret operations with more success.
Speaker 1: This is the book that puts what some want.
Speaker 4: To deny into the light.
Speaker 1: In Denial, Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks Larryhncock.
Speaker 1: For more information, go to larryheyphen Handcock dot com. Pick
Speaker 1: up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com,
Speaker 1: in digital or physical.
Speaker 2: Oh Chili dot Com.
Speaker 1: Revelation through Conversation oh Chili dot com.
Speaker 6: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 6: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 6: the context of The Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 6: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 6: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 6: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 6: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 6: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 6: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 6: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 6: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 6: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 6: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 6: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 6: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 6: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 6: up against.
Speaker 1: For more information The War State.
Speaker 4: Dot com revelation through conversation, the.
Speaker 1: Muse expressed by callers, schools there anyone else who happens
Speaker 1: to get on the air of Jelly dot com do
Speaker 1: not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot com or
Speaker 1: Jeff o'chilli and we are not responsible for any stupidity
Speaker 1: which might ensue.
Speaker 3: Thank you, O Chili dot Com.
Speaker 5: Revelation through consation. Here it all shell chilly dreams and
Speaker 5: truth true. You are the a fag. You are the
Speaker 4: Yeah mm hm, the Ochella dot com radio networ